Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2141 | control, N = 1061 | treatment, N = 1081 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 212 | 51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75) | 50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75) | 51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73) | 0.413 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 214 | 0.557 | |||
f | 173 (81%) | 84 (79%) | 89 (82%) | ||
m | 41 (19%) | 22 (21%) | 19 (18%) | ||
occupation | 214 | 0.847 | |||
day_training | 5 (2.3%) | 2 (1.9%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
full_time | 24 (11%) | 12 (11%) | 12 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 30 (14%) | 14 (13%) | 16 (15%) | ||
other | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
part_time | 40 (19%) | 22 (21%) | 18 (17%) | ||
retired | 51 (24%) | 23 (22%) | 28 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 4 (3.7%) | ||
shelter | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
unemploy | 48 (22%) | 26 (25%) | 22 (20%) | ||
marital | 214 | 0.981 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
divore | 24 (11%) | 13 (12%) | 11 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
married | 68 (32%) | 32 (30%) | 36 (33%) | ||
none | 99 (46%) | 50 (47%) | 49 (45%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
widow | 15 (7.0%) | 7 (6.6%) | 8 (7.4%) | ||
edu | 214 | 0.538 | |||
bachelor | 47 (22%) | 20 (19%) | 27 (25%) | ||
diploma | 37 (17%) | 23 (22%) | 14 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.3%) | 4 (3.8%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (7.0%) | 8 (7.5%) | 7 (6.5%) | ||
primary | 18 (8.4%) | 8 (7.5%) | 10 (9.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 25 (12%) | 13 (12%) | 12 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 57 (27%) | 26 (25%) | 31 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 10 (4.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 214 | 0.851 | |||
10001_12000 | 7 (3.3%) | 2 (1.9%) | 5 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (5.1%) | 4 (3.8%) | 7 (6.5%) | ||
14001_16000 | 10 (4.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.3%) | 3 (2.8%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.7%) | 7 (6.6%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 37 (17%) | 21 (20%) | 16 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 32 (15%) | 15 (14%) | 17 (16%) | ||
4001_6000 | 27 (13%) | 12 (11%) | 15 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 20 (9.3%) | 11 (10%) | 9 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 17 (7.9%) | 9 (8.5%) | 8 (7.4%) | ||
below_2000 | 38 (18%) | 18 (17%) | 20 (19%) | ||
medication | 214 | 191 (89%) | 94 (89%) | 97 (90%) | 0.789 |
onset_duration | 212 | 15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63) | 15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56) | 15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63) | 0.709 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 210 | 35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72) | 35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67) | 36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72) | 0.517 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2141 | control, N = 1061 | treatment, N = 1081 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 214 | 3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.968 |
recovery_stage_b | 214 | 17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24) | 18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.486 |
ras_confidence | 214 | 29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45) | 29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42) | 29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45) | 0.593 |
ras_willingness | 214 | 11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 0.839 |
ras_goal | 214 | 17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25) | 17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25) | 17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.472 |
ras_reliance | 214 | 13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20) | 0.438 |
ras_domination | 214 | 9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15) | 0.204 |
symptom | 214 | 30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56) | 30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55) | 30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56) | 0.997 |
slof_work | 214 | 22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30) | 22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30) | 22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30) | 0.695 |
slof_relationship | 214 | 25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35) | 24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35) | 0.206 |
satisfaction | 214 | 20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35) | 19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34) | 20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 0.163 |
mhc_emotional | 214 | 10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 0.694 |
mhc_social | 214 | 15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30) | 14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30) | 15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30) | 0.567 |
mhc_psychological | 214 | 21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36) | 21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36) | 0.628 |
resilisnce | 214 | 16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30) | 16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30) | 17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30) | 0.084 |
social_provision | 214 | 13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20) | 13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 0.051 |
els_value_living | 214 | 16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25) | 16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24) | 17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25) | 0.451 |
els_life_fulfill | 214 | 12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20) | 0.140 |
els | 214 | 29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44) | 30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45) | 0.219 |
social_connect | 214 | 26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48) | 26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48) | 26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48) | 0.608 |
shs_agency | 214 | 14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23) | 14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24) | 0.092 |
shs_pathway | 214 | 15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24) | 15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.101 |
shs | 214 | 30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48) | 29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46) | 31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48) | 0.082 |
esteem | 214 | 12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20) | 0.712 |
mlq_search | 214 | 14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21) | 14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 0.161 |
mlq_presence | 214 | 13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21) | 13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21) | 13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21) | 0.643 |
mlq | 214 | 28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42) | 27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40) | 28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42) | 0.322 |
empower | 214 | 19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30) | 18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30) | 0.272 |
ismi_resistance | 214 | 14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20) | 14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20) | 14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 0.986 |
ismi_discrimation | 214 | 11.71 ± 3.04 (5 - 20) | 11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20) | 11.57 ± 3.16 (5 - 20) | 0.524 |
sss_affective | 214 | 10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.715 |
sss_behavior | 214 | 9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.648 |
sss_cognitive | 214 | 8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 0.587 |
sss | 214 | 28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54) | 28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 0.873 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.13 | 0.119 | 2.90, 3.36 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.167 | -0.328, 0.327 | 0.998 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.130 | 0.157 | -0.179, 0.439 | 0.410 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.173 | 0.231 | -0.280, 0.625 | 0.456 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.283 | 17.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.257 | 0.399 | -1.04, 0.525 | 0.520 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.272 | 0.307 | -0.874, 0.329 | 0.377 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.833 | 0.452 | -0.053, 1.72 | 0.067 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.534 | 28.5, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.389 | 0.753 | -1.09, 1.86 | 0.606 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.629 | 0.493 | -0.338, 1.60 | 0.205 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.54 | 0.727 | 0.120, 2.97 | 0.036 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.201 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.043 | 0.284 | -0.600, 0.514 | 0.879 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.068 | 0.212 | -0.348, 0.484 | 0.749 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.467 | 0.312 | -0.144, 1.08 | 0.137 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.319 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.332 | 0.450 | -0.549, 1.21 | 0.461 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.231 | 0.314 | -0.384, 0.846 | 0.462 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.820 | 0.462 | -0.085, 1.73 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.284 | 12.5, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.315 | 0.400 | -0.469, 1.10 | 0.431 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.395 | 0.272 | -0.138, 0.929 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.456 | 0.401 | -0.330, 1.24 | 0.258 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.234 | 9.55, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.413 | 0.330 | -1.06, 0.233 | 0.211 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.039 | 0.266 | -0.560, 0.482 | 0.883 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.06 | 0.391 | 0.289, 1.82 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 0.897 | 28.5, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.103 | 1.265 | -2.58, 2.38 | 0.935 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.25 | 0.713 | -2.65, 0.150 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.45 | 1.052 | -3.51, 0.612 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.458 | 21.4, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.216 | 0.646 | -1.48, 1.05 | 0.739 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.150 | 0.426 | -0.686, 0.985 | 0.726 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.470 | 0.628 | -0.761, 1.70 | 0.456 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.6 | 0.558 | 23.5, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.787 | -0.505, 2.58 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.133 | 0.532 | -1.18, 0.909 | 0.802 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.680 | 0.783 | -0.855, 2.22 | 0.387 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 0.685 | 18.2, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 0.966 | -0.544, 3.24 | 0.164 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.889 | 0.626 | -0.338, 2.12 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.911 | 0.922 | -0.896, 2.72 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.365 | 9.90, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.216 | 0.515 | -0.794, 1.23 | 0.675 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.356 | 0.307 | -0.245, 0.958 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.112 | 0.452 | -0.775, 0.999 | 0.805 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.578 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.473 | 0.816 | -1.13, 2.07 | 0.562 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.810 | 0.541 | -0.249, 1.87 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.177 | 0.797 | -1.38, 1.74 | 0.824 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 0.669 | 20.2, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.492 | 0.944 | -1.36, 2.34 | 0.603 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.998 | 0.586 | -0.152, 2.15 | 0.091 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.039 | 0.865 | -1.66, 1.73 | 0.964 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.436 | 15.2, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.615 | -0.150, 2.26 | 0.088 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.756 | 0.449 | -0.124, 1.64 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.816 | 0.661 | -0.479, 2.11 | 0.219 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.278 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.738 | 0.392 | -0.030, 1.51 | 0.061 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.196 | 0.279 | -0.743, 0.351 | 0.483 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.531 | 0.411 | -0.274, 1.34 | 0.198 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.306 | 16.2, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.335 | 0.432 | -0.511, 1.18 | 0.439 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.282 | 0.307 | -0.319, 0.883 | 0.359 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.534 | 0.451 | -0.351, 1.42 | 0.239 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.315 | 11.7, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.668 | 0.445 | -0.204, 1.54 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.235 | 0.292 | -0.338, 0.808 | 0.423 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.539 | 0.431 | -0.306, 1.38 | 0.213 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.573 | 28.0, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.808 | -0.581, 2.59 | 0.216 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.539 | 0.515 | -0.471, 1.55 | 0.297 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 0.760 | -0.470, 2.51 | 0.182 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 0.896 | 25.2, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.683 | 1.263 | -3.16, 1.79 | 0.589 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.287 | 0.787 | -1.25, 1.83 | 0.716 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.73 | 1.160 | -6.00, -1.45 | 0.002 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.483 | 12.8, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.14 | 0.681 | -0.192, 2.48 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.558 | 0.413 | -0.251, 1.37 | 0.179 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.462 | 0.609 | -0.732, 1.66 | 0.449 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.395 | 14.6, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.938 | 0.557 | -0.153, 2.03 | 0.093 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.648 | 0.366 | -0.069, 1.37 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.234 | 0.540 | -0.824, 1.29 | 0.665 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.838 | 27.5, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.08 | 1.182 | -0.236, 4.40 | 0.080 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.20 | 0.722 | -0.214, 2.62 | 0.099 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.692 | 1.065 | -1.40, 2.78 | 0.517 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.149 | 12.4, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.068 | 0.210 | -0.344, 0.481 | 0.746 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.048 | 0.197 | -0.433, 0.338 | 0.809 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.029 | 0.288 | -0.536, 0.594 | 0.920 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.336 | 13.8, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.710 | 0.474 | -0.220, 1.64 | 0.136 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.677 | 0.382 | -0.073, 1.43 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.639 | 0.562 | -1.74, 0.463 | 0.258 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.411 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.579 | -0.829, 1.44 | 0.598 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.719 | 0.432 | -0.128, 1.57 | 0.099 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.124 | 0.636 | -1.12, 1.37 | 0.845 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.673 | 26.4, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.02 | 0.949 | -0.844, 2.88 | 0.285 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.40 | 0.737 | -0.048, 2.84 | 0.060 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.495 | 1.083 | -2.62, 1.63 | 0.648 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.433 | 18.0, 19.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.672 | 0.610 | -0.525, 1.87 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.05 | 0.411 | 0.246, 1.86 | 0.012 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.394 | 0.605 | -1.58, 0.792 | 0.516 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.248 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.022 | 0.350 | -0.664, 0.709 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.430 | 0.291 | -0.141, 1.00 | 0.142 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.406 | 0.428 | -0.432, 1.24 | 0.344 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.298 | 11.3, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.255 | 0.420 | -1.08, 0.568 | 0.544 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.550 | 0.352 | -1.24, 0.141 | 0.121 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.373 | 0.518 | -1.39, 0.642 | 0.473 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.354 | 9.51, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.500 | -0.811, 1.15 | 0.736 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.361 | 0.315 | -0.979, 0.256 | 0.254 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.674 | 0.465 | -1.59, 0.236 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.357 | 9.36, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.250 | 0.504 | -1.24, 0.738 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.540 | 0.328 | -1.18, 0.104 | 0.103 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.165 | 0.484 | -1.11, 0.784 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.49 | 0.355 | 7.79, 9.19 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.253 | 0.501 | -0.729, 1.23 | 0.614 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.378 | 0.336 | -1.04, 0.281 | 0.263 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.531 | 0.495 | -1.50, 0.440 | 0.286 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 1.002 | 26.8, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.169 | 1.414 | -2.60, 2.94 | 0.905 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.26 | 0.832 | -2.89, 0.371 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.30 | 1.228 | -3.70, 1.11 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(324) = 26.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.79e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(324) = -2.87e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -3.94e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44], t(324) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.62], t(324) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.49, 18.60], t(324) = 63.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.52], t(324) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.33], t(324) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.72], t(324) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(324) = 55.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.86], t(324) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.60], t(324) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.12, 2.97], t(324) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [0.02, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.06], t(324) = 57.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.51], t(324) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.48], t(324) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.08], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(324) = 53.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(324) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.85], t(324) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.73], t(324) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.47, 13.58], t(324) = 45.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.10], t(324) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.93], t(324) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.24], t(324) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.47], t(324) = 42.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.23], t(324) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.48], t(324) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.29, 1.82], t(324) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.12, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.53, 32.04], t(324) = 33.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(324) = -0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.15], t(324) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.61], t(324) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(324) = 48.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.05], t(324) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.98], t(324) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.70], t(324) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(324) = 44.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(324) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.91], t(324) = -0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.22], t(324) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.20, 20.88], t(324) = 28.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.24], t(324) = 1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.12], t(324) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.72], t(324) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(324) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(324) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.96], t(324) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.00], t(324) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.84, 16.11], t(324) = 25.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.07], t(324) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.87], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.74], t(324) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.24, 22.86], t(324) = 32.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.34], t(324) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.15], t(324) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.73], t(324) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 5.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(324) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(324) = 1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.64], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.11], t(324) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.65, 13.74], t(324) = 47.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.51], t(324) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.35], t(324) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.34], t(324) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(324) = 54.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(324) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.88], t(324) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.42], t(324) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.99], t(324) = 39.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.81], t(324) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.38], t(324) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(324) = 50.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.59], t(324) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.55], t(324) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.51], t(324) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.16, 28.67], t(324) = 30.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.16, 1.79], t(324) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.83], t(324) = 0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.73, 95% CI [-6.00, -1.45], t(324) = -3.21, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(324) = 28.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.37], t(324) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.66], t(324) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(324) = 39.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.03], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.37], t(324) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.29], t(324) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.51, 30.79], t(324) = 34.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.40], t(324) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.62], t(324) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.78], t(324) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.06e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.94], t(324) = 84.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.48], t(324) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34], t(324) = -0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.59], t(324) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.77, 15.08], t(324) = 42.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.64], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.43], t(324) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.46], t(324) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(324) = 32.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(324) = 0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(324) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.37], t(324) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(324) = 41.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.88], t(324) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.84], t(324) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-6.85e-03, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.62, 1.63], t(324) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.04, 19.74], t(324) = 43.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.87], t(324) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [0.25, 1.86], t(324) = 2.56, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.06, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.79], t(324) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.83], t(324) = 57.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(324) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.72e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.00], t(324) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.24], t(324) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.26, 12.42], t(324) = 39.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.57], t(324) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.14], t(324) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.64], t(324) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(324) = 28.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(324) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.26], t(324) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.24], t(324) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.76], t(324) = 28.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.74], t(324) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.10], t(324) = -1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.78], t(324) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.79, 9.19], t(324) = 23.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.23], t(324) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.28], t(324) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.44], t(324) = -1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.79, 30.72], t(324) = 28.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.94], t(324) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.37], t(324) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.11], t(324) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,053.498 | 1,064.895 | -523.749 | 1,047.498 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,055.534 | 1,078.329 | -521.767 | 1,043.534 | 3.963 | 3 | 0.265 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,590.648 | 1,602.045 | -792.324 | 1,584.648 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,592.979 | 1,615.774 | -790.490 | 1,580.979 | 3.669 | 3 | 0.299 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,992.249 | 2,003.646 | -993.124 | 1,986.249 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,979.650 | 2,002.444 | -983.825 | 1,967.650 | 18.599 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,362.699 | 1,374.096 | -678.350 | 1,356.699 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,363.018 | 1,385.813 | -675.509 | 1,351.018 | 5.681 | 3 | 0.128 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,657.975 | 1,669.372 | -825.988 | 1,651.975 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,652.518 | 1,675.312 | -820.259 | 1,640.518 | 11.457 | 3 | 0.009 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,575.461 | 1,586.858 | -784.730 | 1,569.461 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,570.012 | 1,592.806 | -779.006 | 1,558.012 | 11.449 | 3 | 0.010 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,482.441 | 1,493.839 | -738.221 | 1,476.441 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,475.986 | 1,498.780 | -731.993 | 1,463.986 | 12.455 | 3 | 0.006 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,298.340 | 2,309.738 | -1,146.170 | 2,292.340 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,289.691 | 2,312.485 | -1,138.845 | 2,277.691 | 14.650 | 3 | 0.002 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,875.909 | 1,887.306 | -934.954 | 1,869.909 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,879.936 | 1,902.731 | -933.968 | 1,867.936 | 1.973 | 3 | 0.578 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,012.758 | 2,024.155 | -1,003.379 | 2,006.758 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,015.122 | 2,037.917 | -1,001.561 | 2,003.122 | 3.636 | 3 | 0.304 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,147.272 | 2,158.670 | -1,070.636 | 2,141.272 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,141.531 | 2,164.325 | -1,064.765 | 2,129.531 | 11.741 | 3 | 0.008 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,706.408 | 1,717.806 | -850.204 | 1,700.408 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,708.844 | 1,731.639 | -848.422 | 1,696.844 | 3.564 | 3 | 0.313 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,034.137 | 2,045.534 | -1,014.069 | 2,028.137 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,034.736 | 2,057.531 | -1,011.368 | 2,022.736 | 5.401 | 3 | 0.145 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,117.344 | 2,128.741 | -1,055.672 | 2,111.344 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,117.579 | 2,140.374 | -1,052.790 | 2,105.579 | 5.764 | 3 | 0.124 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,879.417 | 1,890.815 | -936.709 | 1,873.417 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,867.880 | 1,890.674 | -927.940 | 1,855.880 | 17.538 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,567.294 | 1,578.691 | -780.647 | 1,561.294 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,565.889 | 1,588.683 | -776.944 | 1,553.889 | 7.405 | 3 | 0.060 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,631.090 | 1,642.487 | -812.545 | 1,625.090 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,628.909 | 1,651.703 | -808.454 | 1,616.909 | 8.181 | 3 | 0.042 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,637.036 | 1,648.433 | -815.518 | 1,631.036 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,632.955 | 1,655.750 | -810.478 | 1,620.955 | 10.081 | 3 | 0.018 |
els | null | 3 | 2,025.899 | 2,037.296 | -1,009.950 | 2,019.899 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,020.539 | 2,043.334 | -1,004.270 | 2,008.539 | 11.360 | 3 | 0.010 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,321.964 | 2,333.361 | -1,157.982 | 2,315.964 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,310.285 | 2,333.079 | -1,149.142 | 2,298.285 | 17.679 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,901.214 | 1,912.611 | -947.607 | 1,895.214 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,896.775 | 1,919.570 | -942.388 | 1,884.775 | 10.438 | 3 | 0.015 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,786.445 | 1,797.842 | -890.223 | 1,780.445 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,781.156 | 1,803.950 | -884.578 | 1,769.156 | 11.289 | 3 | 0.010 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,268.779 | 2,280.176 | -1,131.389 | 2,262.779 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,262.596 | 2,285.391 | -1,125.298 | 2,250.596 | 12.183 | 3 | 0.007 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,200.367 | 1,211.764 | -597.183 | 1,194.367 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,206.126 | 1,228.920 | -597.063 | 1,194.126 | 0.241 | 3 | 0.971 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,714.691 | 1,726.088 | -854.345 | 1,708.691 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,716.262 | 1,739.057 | -852.131 | 1,704.262 | 4.428 | 3 | 0.219 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,833.614 | 1,845.011 | -913.807 | 1,827.614 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,833.315 | 1,856.109 | -910.657 | 1,821.315 | 6.300 | 3 | 0.098 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,166.622 | 2,178.020 | -1,080.311 | 2,160.622 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,166.945 | 2,189.740 | -1,077.473 | 2,154.945 | 5.677 | 3 | 0.128 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,849.907 | 1,861.304 | -921.953 | 1,843.907 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,846.562 | 1,869.356 | -917.281 | 1,834.562 | 9.345 | 3 | 0.025 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,525.216 | 1,536.613 | -759.608 | 1,519.216 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,521.863 | 1,544.658 | -754.932 | 1,509.863 | 9.353 | 3 | 0.025 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,646.672 | 1,658.069 | -820.336 | 1,640.672 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,643.614 | 1,666.408 | -815.807 | 1,631.614 | 9.058 | 3 | 0.029 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,705.459 | 1,716.857 | -849.730 | 1,699.459 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,701.031 | 1,723.826 | -844.516 | 1,689.031 | 10.428 | 3 | 0.015 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,714.353 | 1,725.750 | -854.177 | 1,708.353 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,713.418 | 1,736.213 | -850.709 | 1,701.418 | 6.935 | 3 | 0.074 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,717.146 | 1,728.544 | -855.573 | 1,711.146 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,715.579 | 1,738.373 | -851.789 | 1,703.579 | 7.568 | 3 | 0.056 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,376.772 | 2,388.169 | -1,185.386 | 2,370.772 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,372.535 | 2,395.330 | -1,180.268 | 2,360.535 | 10.237 | 3 | 0.017 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 106 | 3.13 ± 1.22 | 108 | 3.13 ± 1.22 | 0.998 | 0.001 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 63 | 3.26 ± 1.18 | -0.138 | 53 | 3.43 ± 1.17 | -0.321 | 0.434 | -0.182 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 106 | 18.05 ± 2.91 | 108 | 17.79 ± 2.92 | 0.520 | 0.143 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 63 | 17.77 ± 2.68 | 0.152 | 53 | 18.35 ± 2.62 | -0.312 | 0.244 | -0.321 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 106 | 29.57 ± 5.50 | 108 | 29.95 ± 5.52 | 0.606 | -0.137 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 63 | 30.20 ± 4.87 | -0.221 | 53 | 32.13 ± 4.70 | -0.763 | 0.031 | -0.679 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 106 | 11.67 ± 2.07 | 108 | 11.63 ± 2.08 | 0.879 | 0.035 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 63 | 11.74 ± 1.89 | -0.055 | 53 | 12.16 ± 1.85 | -0.433 | 0.224 | -0.343 |
ras_goal | 1st | 106 | 17.19 ± 3.28 | 108 | 17.52 ± 3.30 | 0.461 | -0.183 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 63 | 17.42 ± 2.95 | -0.127 | 53 | 18.57 ± 2.86 | -0.578 | 0.034 | -0.634 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 106 | 13.03 ± 2.92 | 108 | 13.34 ± 2.93 | 0.431 | -0.200 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 63 | 13.42 ± 2.61 | -0.251 | 53 | 14.19 ± 2.53 | -0.540 | 0.108 | -0.490 |
ras_domination | 1st | 106 | 10.01 ± 2.41 | 108 | 9.60 ± 2.41 | 0.211 | 0.265 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 63 | 9.97 ± 2.24 | 0.025 | 53 | 10.61 ± 2.20 | -0.651 | 0.121 | -0.412 |
symptom | 1st | 106 | 30.28 ± 9.23 | 108 | 30.18 ± 9.27 | 0.935 | 0.025 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 63 | 29.04 ± 7.93 | 0.305 | 53 | 27.48 ± 7.58 | 0.661 | 0.283 | 0.380 |
slof_work | 1st | 106 | 22.30 ± 4.72 | 108 | 22.09 ± 4.74 | 0.739 | 0.088 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 63 | 22.45 ± 4.18 | -0.061 | 53 | 22.71 ± 4.04 | -0.252 | 0.740 | -0.103 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 106 | 24.64 ± 5.75 | 108 | 25.68 ± 5.77 | 0.189 | -0.337 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 63 | 24.51 ± 5.12 | 0.043 | 53 | 26.23 ± 4.96 | -0.178 | 0.068 | -0.559 |
satisfaction | 1st | 106 | 19.54 ± 7.05 | 108 | 20.89 ± 7.08 | 0.164 | -0.374 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 63 | 20.43 ± 6.23 | -0.246 | 53 | 22.69 ± 6.01 | -0.499 | 0.048 | -0.626 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 106 | 10.61 ± 3.76 | 108 | 10.83 ± 3.78 | 0.675 | -0.123 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 63 | 10.97 ± 3.27 | -0.202 | 53 | 11.30 ± 3.13 | -0.266 | 0.581 | -0.187 |
mhc_social | 1st | 106 | 14.97 ± 5.95 | 108 | 15.44 ± 5.98 | 0.562 | -0.152 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 63 | 15.78 ± 5.29 | -0.259 | 53 | 16.43 ± 5.11 | -0.316 | 0.502 | -0.208 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 106 | 21.55 ± 6.89 | 108 | 22.04 ± 6.92 | 0.603 | -0.146 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 63 | 22.54 ± 6.03 | -0.296 | 53 | 23.08 ± 5.80 | -0.307 | 0.630 | -0.157 |
resilisnce | 1st | 106 | 16.01 ± 4.49 | 108 | 17.06 ± 4.50 | 0.088 | -0.404 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 63 | 16.76 ± 4.07 | -0.289 | 53 | 18.64 ± 3.97 | -0.602 | 0.013 | -0.717 |
social_provision | 1st | 106 | 13.20 ± 2.86 | 108 | 13.94 ± 2.87 | 0.061 | -0.456 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 63 | 13.00 ± 2.58 | 0.121 | 53 | 14.27 ± 2.51 | -0.207 | 0.008 | -0.784 |
els_value_living | 1st | 106 | 16.80 ± 3.15 | 108 | 17.14 ± 3.16 | 0.439 | -0.188 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 63 | 17.08 ± 2.84 | -0.159 | 53 | 17.95 ± 2.76 | -0.459 | 0.097 | -0.488 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 106 | 12.37 ± 3.25 | 108 | 13.04 ± 3.26 | 0.135 | -0.396 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 63 | 12.60 ± 2.88 | -0.139 | 53 | 13.81 ± 2.78 | -0.458 | 0.023 | -0.715 |
els | 1st | 106 | 29.17 ± 5.90 | 108 | 30.17 ± 5.92 | 0.216 | -0.338 | ||
els | 2nd | 63 | 29.71 ± 5.19 | -0.182 | 53 | 31.73 ± 5.01 | -0.525 | 0.034 | -0.681 |
social_connect | 1st | 106 | 26.92 ± 9.22 | 108 | 26.23 ± 9.26 | 0.589 | 0.151 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 63 | 27.20 ± 8.08 | -0.063 | 53 | 22.79 ± 7.77 | 0.760 | 0.003 | 0.974 |
shs_agency | 1st | 106 | 13.74 ± 4.97 | 108 | 14.88 ± 4.99 | 0.095 | -0.482 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 63 | 14.29 ± 4.33 | -0.235 | 53 | 15.90 ± 4.16 | -0.430 | 0.043 | -0.676 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 106 | 15.42 ± 4.06 | 108 | 16.35 ± 4.08 | 0.093 | -0.444 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 63 | 16.06 ± 3.60 | -0.307 | 53 | 17.24 ± 3.48 | -0.417 | 0.076 | -0.554 |
shs | 1st | 106 | 29.15 ± 8.63 | 108 | 31.23 ± 8.67 | 0.080 | -0.501 | ||
shs | 2nd | 63 | 30.35 ± 7.53 | -0.289 | 53 | 33.13 ± 7.24 | -0.456 | 0.044 | -0.668 |
esteem | 1st | 106 | 12.65 ± 1.54 | 108 | 12.72 ± 1.54 | 0.746 | -0.058 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 63 | 12.60 ± 1.49 | 0.041 | 53 | 12.70 ± 1.47 | 0.016 | 0.725 | -0.083 |
mlq_search | 1st | 106 | 14.42 ± 3.46 | 108 | 15.13 ± 3.47 | 0.136 | -0.316 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 63 | 15.10 ± 3.22 | -0.302 | 53 | 15.17 ± 3.16 | -0.017 | 0.905 | -0.032 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 106 | 13.25 ± 4.23 | 108 | 13.55 ± 4.25 | 0.598 | -0.122 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 63 | 13.96 ± 3.86 | -0.286 | 53 | 14.40 ± 3.76 | -0.335 | 0.544 | -0.171 |
mlq | 1st | 106 | 27.67 ± 6.93 | 108 | 28.69 ± 6.96 | 0.285 | -0.236 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 63 | 29.07 ± 6.39 | -0.324 | 53 | 29.59 ± 6.25 | -0.209 | 0.658 | -0.121 |
empower | 1st | 106 | 18.89 ± 4.46 | 108 | 19.56 ± 4.47 | 0.272 | -0.283 | ||
empower | 2nd | 63 | 19.94 ± 3.97 | -0.442 | 53 | 20.22 ± 3.84 | -0.277 | 0.703 | -0.117 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 106 | 14.34 ± 2.56 | 108 | 14.36 ± 2.57 | 0.949 | -0.013 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 63 | 14.77 ± 2.40 | -0.251 | 53 | 15.20 ± 2.36 | -0.488 | 0.334 | -0.250 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 106 | 11.84 ± 3.07 | 108 | 11.58 ± 3.08 | 0.544 | 0.123 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 63 | 11.29 ± 2.88 | 0.265 | 53 | 10.66 ± 2.84 | 0.444 | 0.240 | 0.302 |
sss_affective | 1st | 106 | 10.21 ± 3.65 | 108 | 10.38 ± 3.66 | 0.736 | -0.093 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 63 | 9.85 ± 3.20 | 0.199 | 53 | 9.34 ± 3.09 | 0.571 | 0.388 | 0.279 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 106 | 10.06 ± 3.68 | 108 | 9.81 ± 3.69 | 0.621 | 0.132 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 63 | 9.52 ± 3.25 | 0.285 | 53 | 9.10 ± 3.14 | 0.372 | 0.486 | 0.219 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 106 | 8.49 ± 3.66 | 108 | 8.74 ± 3.67 | 0.614 | -0.130 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 63 | 8.11 ± 3.26 | 0.194 | 53 | 7.84 ± 3.15 | 0.468 | 0.641 | 0.143 |
sss | 1st | 106 | 28.75 ± 10.32 | 108 | 28.92 ± 10.36 | 0.905 | -0.035 | ||
sss | 2nd | 63 | 27.49 ± 8.94 | 0.264 | 53 | 26.37 ± 8.57 | 0.535 | 0.489 | 0.236 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(292.91) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)
2st
t(324.85) = 0.78, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.60)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(261.59) = -0.64, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.53)
2st
t(325.94) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.55)
ras_confidence
1st
t(245.44) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)
2st
t(321.88) = 2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.18 to 3.69)
ras_willingness
1st
t(257.88) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.52)
2st
t(325.69) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.11)
ras_goal
1st
t(250.95) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)
2st
t(324.33) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.22)
ras_reliance
1st
t(248.66) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)
2st
t(323.50) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.71)
ras_domination
1st
t(267.56) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.24)
2st
t(325.96) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.45)
symptom
1st
t(235.44) = -0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.39)
2st
t(311.72) = -1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-4.39 to 1.29)
slof_work
1st
t(246.01) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(322.21) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.76)
slof_relationship
1st
t(248.01) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.59)
2st
t(323.22) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.56)
satisfaction
1st
t(244.57) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.25)
2st
t(321.34) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 4.50)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(238.62) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)
2st
t(316.03) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.50)
mhc_social
1st
t(246.40) = 0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.08)
2st
t(322.43) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.55)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(241.44) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)
2st
t(318.93) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.70)
resilisnce
1st
t(255.53) = 1.72, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.26)
2st
t(325.38) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.34)
social_provision
1st
t(252.86) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.51)
2st
t(324.85) = 2.68, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.20)
els_value_living
1st
t(252.67) = 0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.18)
2st
t(324.81) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.89)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(245.71) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.54)
2st
t(322.04) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.24)
els
1st
t(243.37) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.60)
2st
t(320.50) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.89)
social_connect
1st
t(241.62) = -0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.81)
2st
t(319.09) = -2.99, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-7.31 to -1.51)
shs_agency
1st
t(239.83) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.48)
2st
t(317.37) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.16)
shs_pathway
1st
t(245.78) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.03)
2st
t(322.08) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.47)
shs
1st
t(240.33) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.41)
2st
t(317.88) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.07 to 5.48)
esteem
1st
t(291.53) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)
2st
t(324.88) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.64)
mlq_search
1st
t(267.50) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.64)
2st
t(325.96) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.24)
mlq_presence
1st
t(257.89) = 0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.45)
2st
t(325.69) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.83)
mlq
1st
t(262.48) = 1.07, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.89)
2st
t(325.97) = 0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.84)
empower
1st
t(247.69) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.87)
2st
t(323.07) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.71)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(271.80) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.71)
2st
t(325.81) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(273.22) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.57)
2st
t(325.74) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.42)
sss_affective
1st
t(242.54) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.15)
2st
t(319.86) = -0.86, p = 0.388, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.65)
sss_behavior
1st
t(245.05) = -0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)
2st
t(321.65) = -0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.76)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(247.42) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)
2st
t(322.95) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.89)
sss
1st
t(237.95) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.62 to 2.95)
2st
t(315.22) = -0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-4.33 to 2.08)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(161.48) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.64)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(141.81) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.22)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(132.90) = 4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (1.12 to 3.23)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(139.71) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.99)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(135.88) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.72)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(134.63) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.43)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(145.25) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.58)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(127.59) = -3.48, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.23 to -1.17)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(133.20) = 1.34, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.53)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(134.28) = 0.95, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.69)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(132.43) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.46 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(129.26) = 1.41, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.13)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(133.41) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.15)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(130.76) = 1.63, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.30)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(138.40) = 3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.53)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(136.93) = 1.11, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.93)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(136.82) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.47)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(133.04) = 2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.40)
els
1st vs 2st
t(131.79) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.66)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(130.85) = -4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-5.13 to -1.75)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(129.90) = 2.28, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.91)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(133.08) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.67)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(130.17) = 2.42, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.45)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(160.50) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.40)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(145.22) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(139.72) = 1.80, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.77)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(142.31) = 1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.47)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(134.11) = 1.48, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.54)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(147.77) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.46)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(148.62) = -2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.67 to -0.17)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(131.34) = -3.03, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.36)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(132.69) = -1.98, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(133.96) = -2.49, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.63 to -0.19)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(128.91) = -2.83, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.35 to -0.77)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(150.96) = 0.82, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.44)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(136.01) = -0.89, p = 0.755, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.34)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(129.13) = 1.27, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.61)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(134.41) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.49)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(131.45) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.85)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(130.48) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.93)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(138.65) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.49)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(124.99) = -1.75, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to 0.17)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(129.37) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.99)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(130.21) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.92)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(128.77) = 1.42, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.13)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(126.30) = 1.16, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.96)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(129.53) = 1.50, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.88)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(127.47) = 1.70, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.16)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(133.39) = 1.68, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.64)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(132.26) = -0.70, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(132.18) = 0.92, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.89)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(129.25) = 0.80, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.81)
els
1st vs 2st
t(128.27) = 1.05, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.56)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(127.54) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.85)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(126.80) = 1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.38)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(129.28) = 1.77, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.37)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(127.01) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.63)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(150.23) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.34)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(138.63) = 1.77, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.43)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(134.41) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(136.41) = 1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.85)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(130.08) = 2.55, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.86)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(140.58) = 1.47, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.01)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(141.23) = -1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.15)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(127.92) = -1.14, p = 0.509, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.26)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(128.97) = -1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.11)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(129.96) = -1.12, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.29)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(126.02) = -1.51, p = 0.266, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.39)